The real story of Bridge Hill: A response to Buckney and Morrison (1992)

Abstract

In this note we demonstrate that the Buckney and Morrison (1992) data subsets are located on different geomorphological units and different pre-mining plant communities with different fire histories. The conclusions that they have drawn from their data are therefore not valid.

The complete story of Bridge Hill is yet to be told: A reply to Lewis and Clements

“…If this implication was true, then it would not have been necessary for us to sample as many quadrats as we did, nor to have allowed for temporal variation in the unmined area by sampling over so many years. Lewis and Clements (1993) also claim that the species listed by us are inconsistent with those identified by Myerscough and Carolin's (1986) study of the Myall Lakes area. In mentioning the grass Zoysia macrantha (found by us in mined areas 2-6 years after mining), they seem to be advancing the proposition that the recently mined area is more like a dry sclerophyll forest than a foredune; that proposition would be difficult to sustain on the site.…”

“…No more than eight of the 20 species are recorded by Beadle et al (1982) as in some way restricted to wetter areas. These statistics are not consistent with an intensive sampling of those wetter vegetation types that Lewis and Clements (1993) imply were sampled by us. Lewis and Clements (1993) comment that selective logging, activity of ofT-road vehicles, and fire frequency were all notable disturbances in the Bridge Hill area prior to mining activities.…”

“…These statistics are not consistent with an intensive sampling of those wetter vegetation types that Lewis and Clements (1993) imply were sampled by us. Lewis and Clements (1993) comment that selective logging, activity of ofT-road vehicles, and fire frequency were all notable disturbances in the Bridge Hill area prior to mining activities. However these factors are only important in an assessment of temporal trends in plant species composition if it can be demonstrated that they have a non-random pattern between the mining path and the surrounding area.…”

“…However, Lewis and Clements (1993) have not interpreted our paper in this spirit, and have therefore misinterpreted our work. Although they claim to be presenting the 'real' story of Bridge Hill, what they offer is a promise of additional data which might (or might not) help ecologists and managers to construct, in time, the whole story.…”

“…Such data are certainly to be welcomed, but they may not resolve the issues raised. Lewis and Clements (1993) assert, from an interpretation of Fig. 1 (Buckney & Morrison 1992), that the majority of our sample points north of the mined dune are on Pleistocene sands (unlike the Holocene sands of the mined dune) and in vegetation communities that are different from those originally present on the mined dune.…”